Where We Stand

Resident / Non-Resident Hunting Report and Data

August 2006

SCI collected information pertaining to both resident and non-resident hunters for each state that had a specific big game season. We collected data on tags, available zones, cost, whether tags could be purchased over the counter, what process the hunter had to go through to obtain a tag, and more.

Supplementary analysis of the data collected by SCI is encouraged. Additional trends may be found that could assist in framing this issue.

Recreational hunting and the concept of “fair chase” has been linked for as long as recreational hunting has existed. However, the terms and conditions of what constitutes “fair chase” when hunting is conducted within a high fenced area has never been fully or clearly defined.

SCI believes that the following conditions must be met, or exceeded, in order for the concept of “fair chase” to apply for hunting mammals within high fenced areas in North America:

The animals hunted must have freely resided on the property on which they are being hunted for at least six months, or longer.

The hunting property shall provide escape cover that allows the animals to elude hunters for extended periods of time and multiple occurrences. Escape cover, in the form of rugged terrain or topography, and/or dense thickets or stands of woods, shall collectively comprise at least 50% of the property.

The animals hunted must be part of a breeding herd that is a resident on the hunted property.

The operators of the preserve must provide freely available and ample amounts of cover, food and water at all times.

Animals that are to be hunted must exhibit their natural flight/survival instincts.

Every effort must be made to utilize all meat commonly consumed from a taken animal.

The minimum amount of land necessary to meet these requirements varies by region, terrain and habitat type. Setting a standard minimum area is unlikely to be realistic. However, SCI recommends that state/provincial wildlife management agencies work with the operators and the hunting community within their area to establish specific regulations to guide the operation of hunting preserves.

The North American Fenced Hunting Operations - Operating Standards

While this regulatory authority may be shared with the state/provincial department of agriculture, SCI believes that it is imperative that the wildlife management agencies be involved in the oversight and regulation of this industry.

In addition, operators of these facilities must meet or exceed the state and/or federal requirements for disease-testing, record keeping of all animals, and fencing requirements.

Advertisements that indicate a facility guarantees a kill; or specifically sells or references an individual animal are indicative of operations that do not adhere to the “fair chase” guidelines. SCI recommends that organizations and publications develop specific acceptable advertising guidelines for appropriate ads from fenced hunting operations.

Recommendations from the North American High Fenced ADHOC Committee

A survey will be done outside of SCI on the image of high fenced hunting.

Fenced operations should be regulated by the State Department of Natural Resources or regulated by both the State Department of Natural Resources and the State Department of Agriculture in joint venture.

SCI can delegate the authority to a specific individual or group to negotiate the best deal possible when pending legislation is being proposed at the state level.

Ads in SCI publications need to follow the guidelines that have been set forth on North American high fenced hunting (i.e.- no ads shall be accepted that say no kill-no pay; guaranteeing a kill or selling of an individual animal). The seller of the ad should lose their commission for that ad and this shall apply to marketing in any SCI show or publication.

All edible meat commonly consumed shall be used in a responsible manner.

SCI recommends operators of these facilities reach out to handicapped, disadvantaged, youth and terminally ill hunters.

SCI recommends that the operators of exotic animal hunting facilities, to the extent possible, link their operations to the conservation of wildlife in its natural habitat.

SCI Position Statement on Oil Exploration and Production in The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

March, 2005

One of SCI’s primary concerns is for the welfare of wildlife and its habitat. This is especially true for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). However, SCI recognizes the need for our nation to be as self-sufficient as possible in the production of the strategic natural resource, oil. SCI supports limited production of oil in ANWR, provided that the utmost care is taken in the protection of the environment utilizing the newest and best science and technology available. It is essential that reclamation of land be a top priority upon the completion of the exploration and production. It is SCI’s specific understanding that a percentage of the revenue generated from such exploration and production will be committed to the fund established under the Pittman-Robertson Act for the benefit of wildlife, habitat and sportsmen.

Explanation of SCI's Position on Resident and Non-Resident Hunting

March, 2005

SCI believes the recent lawsuits were ill advised and ill conceived. They pit hunter against hunter, resulting in unintended negative consequences and actions which may ultimately affect our freedom to hunt. For nearly a hundred years, our game species have been well managed by state agencies who utilize local and professional game biologists and agents who are answerable to the local and state residents. Now, as a result of the recent lawsuits, many aspects of game management are in the hands of the federal courts and ultimately may be in the hands of Federal Government bureaucracy. SCI strongly opposes the involvement of the federal government in state and local game management. Therefore, SCI believes that under the circumstances, federal legislative action negating the recent federal court decision may be necessary. However, SCI strongly urges the states to be mindful of the equities of nonresident hunters. Much of huntable land, particularly in the west, is federal land that belongs to all citizens. Every American should have a reasonable opportunity to hunt in states that have hunting. Additionally, nonresident hunting remains and should remain an important part of state fish and game department funding therefore SCI urges the states that have generous quotas to maintain those quotas (for example, Colorado which provides 40% of its quota to non-residents, and New Mexico which provides 22%), and other states to adopt a quota for non-residents of not less than 15%. Read more...

SCI Opposes New Form of Internet Activity

Nov. 24, 2004 – Safari Club International opposes a recently publicized form of internet activity that the organization feels has been improperly designated as "hunting."

"This is not hunting," said SCI President John Monson, of the Texas-based operation that, according to news reports, has suggested the offering of the actual killing of animals remotely via the internet. SCI President Monson joined others on the SCI Executive Committee in denouncing the internet activity, noting that SCI would support legislation, state-by-state if necessary, against such practices.